IF WE CAN ALL SET ASIDE CONCERNS FOR THE STATE OF THE COUNTRY, WE CAN JUST SIT BACK AND LAUGH AT THE INEPTITUDE AND THE INABILITY TO LEARN FROM MISTAKES AS WE GO FROM THE GIDDY HIGH OF ONE FAILED NOMINATION TO THE NEXT.

Today is the 921st day
Iraq War veteran Bradley Manning has spent in military custody. Today,
he again spoke in court and we start with that because the US military
has yet again demonstrated it is a culture that refuses to adapt and is
so rooted in the status quo that it is responsible -- continues to be
responsible -- for the deaths of its own.

Background, Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported
in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of
violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his
personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized
software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight
counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified
information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported
that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges
including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could
result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took
place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32
hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be
moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea
and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied it. The
court-martial was supposed to begin before the election but it was
postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run
on a record of his actual actions.

Bradley
appeared in military court yesterday and we'll note various details
about the case itself. But the most important detail is one that
effects all serving and veterans who have served -- as well as their
family members.

No, it did not. AP,
from time to time, exists solely to keep Dorothy Parker's adage alive:
You can lead a whore to culture but you cannot make her think.

Taking away his clothes was never about his protection. And, at Third, we noted
that as soon as those details became public and we pointed out that
there were non-cloth items he could be provided with to wear if it
really was about his safety. (And didn't the military then suddenly
discover that to be true?) It was not about his protection.

Bradley
being forced to sleep in the nude -- nude and on full display -- is not
normal, it is not therapeutic and for the AP to suggest that it is is
as offensive if they started running "She asked for it" columns on rape.

If
the US military wasn't trying to punish Bradley (I believe they were
trying to humiliate him, my opinion), their actions do not suddenly
become 'good.' It goes to the larger issue that you have a lot of
idiots who don't know what they're doing.

Forcing anyone to be on public display is humiliating and counter-productive enough, adding nudity to it?

Immediately
after he was taken into military custody, Bradley was transferred from
Iraq to Kuwait. He was not told what was taking place or if he would
stay there or be moved. Extraordinary rendention was already well known
and discussed in the press. When Jane Mayer was an actual reporter and
not the partisan hack she's since morphed into, you could read all
sorts of tales by her about what the US government was allowing to be
done in the name of 'interrogation.'

In such a
climate, a very young man, already under stress, was taken into
military custody. He had no idea what would happen to him. In Kuwait,
at one point he made a knoose. He's called it that in his testimony.
The artist rendering of what prosecutor held up is not actually a
knoose. It's a sheet with a series of knots in it.

The
military prosecution is attempting to assert that this knoose or
'knoose' along with another statement is why certain measures were taken
with Bradley. The AP apparently feels it is their job to make the military's case for them as opposed to being a skeptical press.

The
statement? Arriving at Quantico, he was admitted. When he was being
admitted into Quantico, Bradley wrote on a form, in response to a
question about suicide, "always planning and never acting."

Are you telling me that the US military didn't have a follow up?

If there was a follow up verbal question, then there was a follow up verbal response. Why isn't that noted?

Because it wouldn't back the military's assertion? Possibly.

That's disturbing. More disturbing would be that there was no verbal follow up to a statement like that on a form.

To
be clear, that statement is perfectly 'normal.' At different points in
their lives, many Americans will consider suicide. Maybe for a few
seconds each time they do, maybe in an elaborate fantasy that has
actually deals with something other than suicide.

The
statement is not 'troubling.' For a number of reasons. One, it is an
opening to discuss a serious issue and, two, it demonstrates that the
person being assessed has some comfort level discussing the issue.
Someone being admitted who was planning to kill themselves and wanting
to kill themselves once admitted to a facility, most likely would be
close-lipped about any sucidal thoughts.

The
narrative that the military prosecutor presented to the military court
is that Bradley arrived back in the US and wrote during the intake
assessment that he was "always planning and never acting" upon.
"Planning" should have resulted in Bradley being asked to define
"planning." Is that thinking, is that an abstract, is that an elaborate
plan? If you were to take your own life, how would you do it? A whole
string of questions were prompted by "always planning and never
acting."

Where were those questions?

Was
someone too uncomfortable to ask? Was a medical professional not
present at intake? That seems strange considering the high-profile
nature of Bradley's case even then; however, I would assume the military
would train those working at Quantico or any other brig on suicide.

What
it appears is that, at best, Bradley suffered because the military is
not training those required to do supervision on issues like suicide.

Yesterday, the Defense Dept released
the US Army's suicide numbers for last month: "20 potential suicides:
five have been confirmed as suicides, and 15 remain under investigation"
which is an increase of five from September's numbers. DoD notes that
2011 resulted in 165 deaths confirmed as suicides and that 2012 has
seen 105 confirmed and 61 which are still being investigated. So if all
under investigation currently were to be ruled suicide, October will be
the month that 2012 surpassed 2011 for number of army members taking
their own lives (166 is the number of suicides if the 61 under
investigation end up determined to be suicides). With two months of
data remaining for the calendar year, it is likely 2012 will see an
increase in the number of suicides.

Quantico
brig would be a natural location for potentially at-risk persons.
Those working at Quantico should have a minimum level of training. That
minimum level should have included staff providing direct supervision
-- eyes on -- of Bradley being alarmed over what public nudity might do
to the mental well being of a supposed suicide risk.

There
was nothing healthy about what was done to Bradley. If the military's
narrative, as presented by the prosecution, is correct, then the Defense
Dept is the cause of suicides. It's not merely failing to provide
assistance, it's creating an unhealthy environment that encourages and
assists suicides via its own ignorance and negligence.

This is not an abstract. There is a suicide crisis in the military today.

Senator
Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.
This week, she proposed that the Defense Authorization Bill be expanded
so that it will "require DoD to create a comprehensive, standardized
suicide prevention program."

Senator
Patty Murray: Time and time again, we've lost servicemembers and
veterans to suicide. But while the Departments of Defense and Veterans
Affairs have taken important steps towards addressing this crisis, we
know more must be done. We know that any solution depends upon reducing
wait times and improving access to mental health care; ensuring proper
diagnosis; and achieving true coordination of care and information
between the Departments. This amendment would require a comprehensive,
standardized suicide prevention program across the DoD. It would
require the use of the best medical practices, in suicide prevention and
behavioral health programs to address serious gaps in the current
programs.

Murray's remarks appear in full in the November 28th snapshot.
I strongly support Murray's proposal. Not only that, I hope attorneys
around the country start thinking class-action lawsuit against DoD. A
huge number of veterans and servicemembers have taken their own lives.
They've often done so because the help they needed was not present and
the people who should have seen the risks weren't trained to see the
risks.

If the military is going to stand by
the assertion that what Bradley experienced -- the 'diagnosis' and the
'treatment' -- was standard and humane military treatment, then it's
really time for lawyers to start filing law suits against the DoD and
the VA regarding suicides.